Boston Globe Urges End to Lifetime Alimony in Massachusetts

Massachusetts divorce attorney Jason V. Owens reports on a Boston Globe
editorial calling for an end to “lifetime alimony”.

The Boston Globe has released an editorial making an impassioned plea to “[p]lug the loopholes in alimony reform”. It is unclear if the Globe’s piece will break the logjam
in the Massachusetts Senate Judiciary Committee, where the bill endorsed
by the Globe is presently mired. The bill, H.740, seeks to close loopholes
in the Alimony Reform Act of Massachusetts, passed in 2011, by providing
for the reduction or termination of alimony when an alimony payer reaches
retirement age or when a recipient is cohabitating with a new romantic partner.

Globe Targets Brownsberger For Slowing Alimony Reform

The Globe’s editorial appears to point a finger directly at “State
Senator William Brownsberger, whose judiciary committee is looking at
the legislation”. Advocates for the bill have pointed to Brownsberger
as the main force preventing passage of H.740 in the Massachusetts Senate.
According to the Globe:

[Brownsberger] called [H.740] a zero-sum game, and he’s right: Someone
is going to come away feeling robbed. But while applying the reforms retroactively
will undoubtedly create disruption, legislators should approve a bill
that would extend the 2011 reforms. As a matter of fairness, all couples
in Massachusetts should be subject to the same rules.

The Globe’s endorsement comes on the heels a May 2017
Boston Globe Magazine opinion piece urging the passage of H.740. However, the May editorial
represented the views of a single contributor to the Globe’s Magazine.
Sunday’s endorsement represents the view of the entire Boston Globe
editorial board, which holds greater sway on Beacon Hill. Alimony reform
advocates hope that the Globe’s full-throated support for H.740
will overcome opposition from Brownsberger and others on the judiciary
committee, where H.740 has stalled for weeks.

Brownsberger Seeks to Delay Alimony Reform Vote to 2018

In a recent email to supporters, Stephen K. Hitner, the President of
Massachusetts Alimony Reform, called out Brownsberger and other members of the judiciary committee, writing:

The chairman of the Joint Committee, Senator Will Brownsberger seems to
be ignoring the urge to push thing along claiming that he is afraid of
causing pain. While there are some recipients of Spousal Support that
may experience some discomfort with the Passage of H 740, it is a question
of NEED vs. GREED. At least one of the complaints at the Judiciary Hearing
was mostly HOT AIR as she is worth well over a million dollars. As I have
repeated many time, a recipient spouse with solid evidence of need is
protected by Judicial Discretion in the form of Deviation Factors.

Currently Senator Brownsberger says that the Judiciary is working on other
issues and will not be dealing with the Alimony Reform issue until next
February, 2018. While I do respect the Senator as an honorable person,
I do not feel very comfortable that after all of our efforts he is not
sympathetic to the plight of the Alimony Payer.

According to the Globe, unless H.740 is approved, a substantial portion
of Massachusetts divorcees will continue to be subject to
lifetime alimony awards:

That means that some of the bizarre outcomes that were possible under the
old alimony system endure. Writing recently in the Globe Magazine,
one author related how her partner has to continue sending alimony checks to his
ex-wife, even though she has found a new partner. Under the courts’
interpretation of the 2011 law, paying spouses who divorced before then
also must keep paying alimony after they retire. Those spouses also can’t
automatically end alimony at retirement (though they can ask a court to
modify alimony if their circumstances change).

Real World Impact: Constant Stream of Pre-2012 Alimony Payers

Lest anyone think that alimony cases involving pre-2012 divorces are rare,
it is important to note that at any one time, our law office is always
handling multiple cases for clients who are paying alimony from pre-2012
divorce agreements. Indeed, as the alimony-paying population ages, the
two-class system used in Massachusetts becomes ever more stark. For nearly
all of those divorced after 2012, alimony stops when the payer reaches
federal retirement age. For those divorced before 2012, alimony continues
into the payer’s 70’s. For pre-2012 divorcees, it is not unusual
to see a husband still paying alimony 30 years after a divorce for a marriage
that only lasted 20 years.

The view advocated by opponents like Brownsberger – that applying
the retirement and cohabitation provisions to pre-2012 would be unfair
to former spouses who negotiated under the old law – does not make
much sense. Under Massachusetts law, parties have long had the ability
to make alimony obligations modifiable or unmodifiable. Unmodifiable alimony
agreements would not be affected by H.740. Only alimony orders that both
parties agreed could be modified by a subsequent court order would be
affected by a payer reaching retirement age or a recipient cohabitating
with a new partner.

Next Steps for Alimony Re-Reform Bill?

Given Sen. Brownsberger’s opposition to H.740, alimony reform proponents
are pessimistic about the bill’s passage in advance of the end of
the 2017 legislative session on July 31, 2017. Perhaps the Globe’s
editorial will change the dynamic on Beacon Hill, but it is difficult
to see this happening without a significant increase in public focus on
the judiciary committee.

About the Author: Jason V. Owens is a Massachusetts divorce lawyer and Massachusetts family
law attorney for Lynch & Owens, located in Hingham, Massachusetts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.